26 June 2008
12 Funniest Wedding Names
Amazing. At least these are somewhat accidental (unlike naming a child with a first name that really has unfortunate linkage with a surname; eg Annette Kirtan). Still, quite a giggle, go see the photos of the newspaper announcements. 12 Funniest Wedding Names
How switching language can change your personality - being-human - 25 June 2008 - New Scientist
Now this is an intriguing piece of research: How switching language can change your personality - being-human - 25 June 2008 - New Scientist: It could be interpreted to support linguistic determinism but I would caution against that interpretation. However, we do need to take the implications on board. Here's what was discovered: "women who were actively involved in both English and Spanish speaking cultures interpreted the same events differently, depending on which language they were using at the time. It is known that people in general can switch between different ways of interpreting events and feelings – a phenomenon known as frame shifting. But the researchers say their work shows that bilingual people that are active in two different cultures do it more readily, and that language is the trigger."
My caution would be based on the whole thing about 'framing', and it would be a simple recognition that different cultures do tend to value various things differently and where these are linguistically marked, the connotative meanings tend to push the framing in certain directions. This is not the same as saying that people are bound to reach certain conclusions by linguistic conditioning or that we cannot reach other conclusions or take on board other frames, merely that it would take more effort to do so. It would also indicate that changing metaphors, frames, dialect etc could unlock greater facilities in conceptualising differently. In turn this would suggest that to achieve creative outcomes from consultations, meetings and decision-making proceedures, we would be best to aim for culturally diverse memberships.
My caution would be based on the whole thing about 'framing', and it would be a simple recognition that different cultures do tend to value various things differently and where these are linguistically marked, the connotative meanings tend to push the framing in certain directions. This is not the same as saying that people are bound to reach certain conclusions by linguistic conditioning or that we cannot reach other conclusions or take on board other frames, merely that it would take more effort to do so. It would also indicate that changing metaphors, frames, dialect etc could unlock greater facilities in conceptualising differently. In turn this would suggest that to achieve creative outcomes from consultations, meetings and decision-making proceedures, we would be best to aim for culturally diverse memberships.
25 June 2008
uptalk
My thanks to Cath (uptalk description & references � ninetysix and ten:) for this intro into what is being called uptalk. The article referenced points out that there are vareties of English that use final rising intonation in 'ordinary', declarative sentences (one I hear a lot is in the NE of England, being as I live there!). The development is the occasional use in dialects of English that haven't had HRT before in that kind of sentence. My informal observation concurs with this characterisation of its apparent usage-meaning. "linguists who have analysed HRT have identified its positive discourse functions. It has been shown that HRT serves to track the listener’s comprehension and attention, especially when the speaker is presenting new information. Listeners perceive HRT to be deferential but friendly (Guy & Vonwiller 1984). It also acts as a turn-holding mechanism in narratives (e.g. Warren & Britain 1999).”
So now you know.
So now you know.
24 June 2008
Save Zimbabwe from Mugabe
Please consider adding a small voice via this petition: SAVE ZIMBABWE FROM MUGABE: "Petition to Thabo Mbeki and other leaders of Southern Africa:
We call on you to hold an emergency meeting of Southern African leaders, to work by all means necessary for a legitimate Zimbabwean government that reflects the will of its people, and to decisively isolate those who stand in the way of a peaceful, democratic future for Zimbabwe."
We call on you to hold an emergency meeting of Southern African leaders, to work by all means necessary for a legitimate Zimbabwean government that reflects the will of its people, and to decisively isolate those who stand in the way of a peaceful, democratic future for Zimbabwe."
23 June 2008
We don't hate Muslims
In calling attention to this Distinctly Welcoming: The Lost Art of Identification - incarnation by another name: I want to do two things, one is to commend Richard Sudworth's blog on Christian-Muslim relations. Noteworthy because it exemplifies an approach which is both Evangelical and eirenic.
The other thing is to highlight from that post this phrase in the light of an experience I had last night. First the quote:
"Your average Muslim would rather continue to follow their faith in a manner that fosters goodwill, neighbourliness and peace."
My experience, coming into Nottingham late from the knock on effects of high winds blowing cabling astray somewhere north of London, was to go to the end of the carriage towards the doors to be ready to alight when the train pulled into the station. On arriving at the corridor I was confronted by a young man (in his 20's?) who had been drinking strong cider for a while and was way more curious about me than I was comfortable with and was disinhibited enough to verbalise it. So in the course of a conversation when, uncharacteristically, I was trying to say as little as possible without being offensive (he seemed to be in the unpredictable phase of inebriatedness), we still managed to exchange some information including that I originally hailed from an area of the West Midlands that could indicate I might have been a Wolves supporter which prompted him (and I had realised his accent was west of Birmingham) to indicate he was a West Bromwich Albion fan and that he "hated Wolves" (imagine; I was starting to feel nervous!) and launched into a lively and fist waving rendition of a song about a Wolves player. After that he informed me, with some pride how he had been part of what must have been a mini riot involving a cohort of Albion supporters smashing up a part of a town (not sure which one) for which he had gained 4 restraining orders. I bit my tongue; not feeling it prudent to mention that he probably ought to have been made to pay for the damage or that his pride in this was something I assessed very differently; he seemed to think I'd find it impressive; in fact I found it depressing and oppressive.
Now, why am I mentioning this? Well, because the next thing I know he asked me whether I'd been in the army (perhaps I look the part) and went on to ask me "I hate Muslims, don't you". I said "No" in a tone of voice that tried to imply that there was no reason why I should (what a funny thing to ask) and started to wonder if I should mention loving ones neigbour, Christian regard for human welfare or something. While I was still running through possible follow-up remarks he tried to tell me that they would soon take over the country. I replied that I didn't think that was likely, that in the past people had said that about other minorities and it hadn't happened and that it wasn't going to happen this time either. By this time we had pulled up at the station and, mercifully, we got off and I was able to pull away by dint of being a naturally fast walker. Just before we got off, I recall thinking how I'd rather have most Muslims I knew as neighbours than someone who thought it was clever to make other people pay to clear up his mess and who thought that behaving unpredictably and occasionally belligerently while drunk in public was okay. "Your average Muslim would rather continue to follow their faith in a manner that fosters goodwill, neighbourliness and peace."
Which seems to be a darn sight better than your average BNP sympathiser.
I also found myself worried about how he and people like him seem to define themselves so readily in terms of what or who they hate. That's a terrible and tragic way to find an identity: it constrains you to enmity and to nurturing resentment and to searching for the unlovely to become focussed on grievance and put-downs. All of which tends to produce habits of thought and character which become more and more unlovely, unpleasant and uncompassionate. A far cry from thinking on whatever is true, noble, lovely, pure etc. I just pray that my straightforward "no" might somehow begin to challenge him ... a faint hope, I know, but who knows ....
The other thing is to highlight from that post this phrase in the light of an experience I had last night. First the quote:
"Your average Muslim would rather continue to follow their faith in a manner that fosters goodwill, neighbourliness and peace."
My experience, coming into Nottingham late from the knock on effects of high winds blowing cabling astray somewhere north of London, was to go to the end of the carriage towards the doors to be ready to alight when the train pulled into the station. On arriving at the corridor I was confronted by a young man (in his 20's?) who had been drinking strong cider for a while and was way more curious about me than I was comfortable with and was disinhibited enough to verbalise it. So in the course of a conversation when, uncharacteristically, I was trying to say as little as possible without being offensive (he seemed to be in the unpredictable phase of inebriatedness), we still managed to exchange some information including that I originally hailed from an area of the West Midlands that could indicate I might have been a Wolves supporter which prompted him (and I had realised his accent was west of Birmingham) to indicate he was a West Bromwich Albion fan and that he "hated Wolves" (imagine; I was starting to feel nervous!) and launched into a lively and fist waving rendition of a song about a Wolves player. After that he informed me, with some pride how he had been part of what must have been a mini riot involving a cohort of Albion supporters smashing up a part of a town (not sure which one) for which he had gained 4 restraining orders. I bit my tongue; not feeling it prudent to mention that he probably ought to have been made to pay for the damage or that his pride in this was something I assessed very differently; he seemed to think I'd find it impressive; in fact I found it depressing and oppressive.
Now, why am I mentioning this? Well, because the next thing I know he asked me whether I'd been in the army (perhaps I look the part) and went on to ask me "I hate Muslims, don't you". I said "No" in a tone of voice that tried to imply that there was no reason why I should (what a funny thing to ask) and started to wonder if I should mention loving ones neigbour, Christian regard for human welfare or something. While I was still running through possible follow-up remarks he tried to tell me that they would soon take over the country. I replied that I didn't think that was likely, that in the past people had said that about other minorities and it hadn't happened and that it wasn't going to happen this time either. By this time we had pulled up at the station and, mercifully, we got off and I was able to pull away by dint of being a naturally fast walker. Just before we got off, I recall thinking how I'd rather have most Muslims I knew as neighbours than someone who thought it was clever to make other people pay to clear up his mess and who thought that behaving unpredictably and occasionally belligerently while drunk in public was okay. "Your average Muslim would rather continue to follow their faith in a manner that fosters goodwill, neighbourliness and peace."
Which seems to be a darn sight better than your average BNP sympathiser.
I also found myself worried about how he and people like him seem to define themselves so readily in terms of what or who they hate. That's a terrible and tragic way to find an identity: it constrains you to enmity and to nurturing resentment and to searching for the unlovely to become focussed on grievance and put-downs. All of which tends to produce habits of thought and character which become more and more unlovely, unpleasant and uncompassionate. A far cry from thinking on whatever is true, noble, lovely, pure etc. I just pray that my straightforward "no" might somehow begin to challenge him ... a faint hope, I know, but who knows ....
17 June 2008
Jackson Pollock web2.0'd
Yeah: converts cursor movements into lines using time and direction to produce lines and blobs. Fun for a few minutes and capable of being a real art tool. Jackson Pollock by Miltos Manetas, original design by Stamen, press any key to s
16 June 2008
G8: TIME TO LEAD ON CLIMATE CHANGE
G8: TIME TO LEAD ON CLIMATE CHANGE: "Petition to Japanese Prime Minister Fukuda and G8 leaders:
The world can't wait for urgent action on climate change, and it is your responsibility to take the lead. We urge you to set binding targets to cut greenhouse gases by 2020, in line with what scientists say is needed to avert a climate catastrophe. Rich countries must help developing countries adapt and embrace a clean-energy future, and all must do their fair share to reduce emissions in time. Our common humanity demands nothing less."
The world can't wait for urgent action on climate change, and it is your responsibility to take the lead. We urge you to set binding targets to cut greenhouse gases by 2020, in line with what scientists say is needed to avert a climate catastrophe. Rich countries must help developing countries adapt and embrace a clean-energy future, and all must do their fair share to reduce emissions in time. Our common humanity demands nothing less."
Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex
Interesting: Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex - sex - 16 June 2008 - New Scientist: "Brain scans ... reveal that in gay people, key structures of the brain governing emotion, mood, anxiety and aggressiveness resemble those in straight people of the opposite sex."
This should help frame the ethical debate, apart from anything else, it renders the change of orientation possibility much less plausible conceptually, let alone the evidence of the relative lack of success of 'ex-gay' 'treatments'. It isn't a slam-dunk for any view but it is an important development. And there are other important things about this too: "women are three times as likely as men to suffer from mood disorders or depression. Gay men have higher rates of depression too, she says, but it's difficult to know whether this is down to biology, homophobia or simply feelings of being "different"."
Do note that the sample is small as yet, and also the similarity of this result to MtF transexuals. Note too that the finding does not definitely guide as to the moral valuing of the facts (assuming the further studies confirm them as such); it doesn't answer the question of whether this is an inborn trait to be accepted and worked with (like skin colour) or to be resisted (like the tendency to aggressive or violent responses in many situations).
This should help frame the ethical debate, apart from anything else, it renders the change of orientation possibility much less plausible conceptually, let alone the evidence of the relative lack of success of 'ex-gay' 'treatments'. It isn't a slam-dunk for any view but it is an important development. And there are other important things about this too: "women are three times as likely as men to suffer from mood disorders or depression. Gay men have higher rates of depression too, she says, but it's difficult to know whether this is down to biology, homophobia or simply feelings of being "different"."
Do note that the sample is small as yet, and also the similarity of this result to MtF transexuals. Note too that the finding does not definitely guide as to the moral valuing of the facts (assuming the further studies confirm them as such); it doesn't answer the question of whether this is an inborn trait to be accepted and worked with (like skin colour) or to be resisted (like the tendency to aggressive or violent responses in many situations).
Invention: All-seeing garbage sorter
An important heads up for an invention, here: Invention: All-seeing garbage sorter - tech - 16 June 2008 - New Scientist Tech: it could drive down the cost of rubbish sorting quite a bit which means the recovery costs for recycling could go down quite considerably. "Hyperspectral cameras are mainly developed for military use. But Donald Cowling and Neil Randall from the military research company Qinetiq say one such camera could discriminate all types of plastic, metal and glass"
And that means a better uptake of recycling ...
And that means a better uptake of recycling ...
New Airships Are More Than Just Hot Air
I continue to be interested in the idea of airship travel So, again this article was interesting. I still reckon that it'd be a good seller. If I had Bransons millions, I'd get into this; first as a luxury travel option and a freight thing. Any way the article is here New Airships Are More Than Just Hot Air | Autopia from Wired.com
Christian Theologians Prepare for Extraterrestrial Life
There was a time when I was skeptical about the possibility of extra-terrestrial life for theological reasons, and so I'd have fitted the first proposition in the following quote from this article Christian Theologians Prepare for Extraterrestrial Life: "finding intelligent other-worldly life 'will be inconsistent with the existence of God or at least organized religions.' But such predictions tend to come from outside Christianity. From within, theologians have debated the implications of alien contact for centuries. And if one already believes in angels, no great leap of faith is required to accept the possibility of other extraterrestrial intelligences."
I think that, for me, it revolved around the idea of incarnation. I don't think I had a problem with God creating (or setting up and holding a process in being that led to) other life and intelligence. No, the difficulty was that if God became human then that seems to imply a uniqueness; how could God also become !$aaq*% ? In this I may have been unduly influenced by CS Lewis whose novel Perelandra /Voyage to Venus (the second of the trilogy) had the people of that planet being created in the form of human beings (not like the sentient beings on Mars) because of the incarnation, which set the template, so to speak. I took that idea on board but I'm not sure that it need to be given the weight I did give it. For one thing, could there be other incarnations in other flesh? Maybe. Would it be necessary? Maybe or maybe not. It would depend on sin in other races, and that is something, I gather, that the Vatican document wrestles with. But it may be that even if a remedy for sin is needed for other races, perhaps Jesus would still be that remedy. However, if (as some theologies suggest) God's desire for incarnation is 'prior' to the need for atonement, then God may have incarnated in other forms, if there are such. I can't think of a theological reason why not. The once-for-all-ness of atonement may or may not have an exclusively human reference. A more important issue may be to do with whether other races would be fallen, unfallen or something else, and what our meeting might mean. Anyway the article goes over all this, briefly.
There are a number of science fiction wrestlings with this kind of issue (I commend The Sparrow, for example). Most seem to conclude that there is no problem for Christians to take this on board. But if there are real theological difficulties; I'd like to know what they would be. The comments raise some interesting hypotheticals (leaving aside the sillinesses of the rentamob atheists with axes to grind): I liked the ones about whether an alien could be ordained. I'd add the issues of whether sexual relations could be envisaged (in a somewhat humanoid fashion, eg Star Trek) and if so, what would we make of them theologically?
I think that, for me, it revolved around the idea of incarnation. I don't think I had a problem with God creating (or setting up and holding a process in being that led to) other life and intelligence. No, the difficulty was that if God became human then that seems to imply a uniqueness; how could God also become !$aaq*% ? In this I may have been unduly influenced by CS Lewis whose novel Perelandra /Voyage to Venus (the second of the trilogy) had the people of that planet being created in the form of human beings (not like the sentient beings on Mars) because of the incarnation, which set the template, so to speak. I took that idea on board but I'm not sure that it need to be given the weight I did give it. For one thing, could there be other incarnations in other flesh? Maybe. Would it be necessary? Maybe or maybe not. It would depend on sin in other races, and that is something, I gather, that the Vatican document wrestles with. But it may be that even if a remedy for sin is needed for other races, perhaps Jesus would still be that remedy. However, if (as some theologies suggest) God's desire for incarnation is 'prior' to the need for atonement, then God may have incarnated in other forms, if there are such. I can't think of a theological reason why not. The once-for-all-ness of atonement may or may not have an exclusively human reference. A more important issue may be to do with whether other races would be fallen, unfallen or something else, and what our meeting might mean. Anyway the article goes over all this, briefly.
There are a number of science fiction wrestlings with this kind of issue (I commend The Sparrow, for example). Most seem to conclude that there is no problem for Christians to take this on board. But if there are real theological difficulties; I'd like to know what they would be. The comments raise some interesting hypotheticals (leaving aside the sillinesses of the rentamob atheists with axes to grind): I liked the ones about whether an alien could be ordained. I'd add the issues of whether sexual relations could be envisaged (in a somewhat humanoid fashion, eg Star Trek) and if so, what would we make of them theologically?
15 June 2008
Trees bejewelled
When I take the dog for a walk, I often take my mobile phone which has a 2mpx camera onboard (so quality not hot for detailed work, but seems okay for snaps). Every so often I see stuff I like and try a picture of it in case it comes out something like what I saw. In this case, the splendour of the sunlight and sky on and behind the trees is fabulous. So I thought I'd share it.
14 June 2008
Waterless Washing Machine
Some things sound too good to be true and are, however some sound too good to be true but aren't, and this appears to be one of them. Waterless Washing Machine � Celsias: "developed at the University of Leeds, ... a clean load of laundry for less than 2% of the water and energy of a conventional washing machine. The process works by replacing water with plastic polymer chips which are tumbled with the clothes to remove stains. The technology has been proven to measure up to cleaning industry standards, removing virtually all types of everyday stains as effectively as existing processes whilst leaving clothes as fresh as normal washing and dry enough to dispense tumble-drying."
It may be available in 2009 or 2010. It could be the Dyson of the washing world; another notch in the belt of British invention.
It may be available in 2009 or 2010. It could be the Dyson of the washing world; another notch in the belt of British invention.
Creation month gets a push from church leaders
Now it's not in itself going to change the world, but the formational importance of putting creation care on the regular church teaching agenda could be something that would have an enormous cumulative effect. When I was a university/college chaplain, we started the academic year with around a month of creation care themes relating to being global citizen Christians. The article at the Church Times has a few good quotes which are worth looking at: Church Times - Creation month gets a push from church leaders: "THE presidents of Churches Together in England have called on Christians in England to dedicate their worship each September as “Time for God’s Creation”."
I've mentioned the idea a few times starting here, then here and then here.
I've mentioned the idea a few times starting here, then here and then here.
09 June 2008
woodnstone
A new-to-me web2.0 tool to make a video from a bunch of your own photos. Just add music and the software assembles it. Here's my try out. I reckon it could be quite interesting to have a go at, say, a eucharistic prayer ...
A N I M O T O: woodnstone
A N I M O T O: woodnstone
05 June 2008
The electron microscope art of Rob Kesseler
A slide show of images of plant pollens and one or two other botanical things from electron microscopy. These are really rather beautiful. Have a look. Canopy: The electron microscope art of Rob Kesseler - New Scientist
04 June 2008
Towards a theological reflection on language and linguistics
An attempt to reflect on the fact of language in the light of Genesis 1 & 2
Introduction:
My first degree is in Linguistics (otherwise known as linguistic science) and I have read a number of books in the intervening years that attempt to bring together linguistics and theology. Either they have been mostly about how linguistics can help textual studies or understanding some elements of background to biblical or even doctrinal investigations or they have been very much focussed on the philosophy of language in order to inform hermeneutics and enquiries related to metaphorical and analogical matters in relation to God-talk. All of those things are important, and interesting, but not what I was really looking for.
What I was looking for was a theology of language rather than theology with language or theology via language. What I have been seeking to do is to address the perceived lack and reflect theologically on the phenomenon of human language from the perspective of one formed by the discipline of linguistic science. The framework for this reflection is the pastoral cycle, a major tool of reflection in practical theology which sketches out the main aspects of reflective thinking and practice and so gives structure to the reflective process.
This reflection I see as a kind of dialogue between the characteristics of language in my analysis so far, and some apparently key and certainly intriguing passages in Genesis 1-12. This approach would correspond to Green's 'intuition'1 on the reflection epicycle.
1 experience
Quite simply the experience is of conducting much life in and through the medium of English but also of using other languages from time to time and finding interesting questions about the structure of speech sounds, syntactical relationships, linguistic variation in respect of social and psychological matters and how the human condition is reflected in and refracted through language. There are, then, two main facets of the experience for me.
1.1 human language
Is fairly unique as far as we can tell. The claims about teaching other primates to use sign language are contested in regard to whether they are actually using grammar or merely isolated vocabules in sequence. Being part of linguistic communities is basic: no community, no language.
1.2 linguistic science
is simply the attempt to study the phenomenon of language systematically, descriptively (as opposed to proscriptively: beware grammar marms!) and with a view to formulating testable hypotheses.
2 analysis
In this section I will mention the main characteristics of human language as they appear to me from my experience. These are the communal nature of language, it finiteness, its assimilation to and disclosure of human power, solidarity and identity, and that it is rule-based and generative.
2.1 communal
The only examples of languages which have only one speaker are those shortly to be dead languages or artificial languages. In the former case a linguistic community once did exist. In the latter it exists in the imagination of the author (Sindarin or Quenya might be cited here and Esperanto when first devised). Language is a communal possession: it belongs to a speech community who negotiate it tacitly in usage and sometimes explicitly in arguments or observations about habits or differences of speech.
2.2 Finite and focal
However big a word count a language can muster, it is still a finite number, and a smaller number of words that will be in active regular usage. Finiteness means it is partial, connotative and unstable. Focal means that as a finite tool it brings things into focus, excluding others thereby from topicality.
2.2.1 partial
Language is partial in that it is constrained to draw attention to some things. It cannot refer to everything. And even what it does focus on can only be partially described by picking out salient features of perceived reality while leaving others assumed and unstated. This is an important feature to note because some theological positions assume that the partialness of language implies an imperfection that would not be part of Eschatological reality. I doubt this -as will be seen below.
2.2.2 connotative
Because it is partial, language -indeed any sign system, also tends to invest its components with a penumbra of connoted meanings: things that may be implied or implicated, associations. These meanings are often very influential but unnoticed consciously.
2.2.3 unstable
By virtue of a vocal tract operated by fatigue-prone musculature in a frequently sub-optimal environment relying on 'receiving equipment' of variable quality, language changes. By virtue of facing novel dimensions of human experience (at least existentially), language changes. By virtue of artistry, fashion and the felt need to stake out identities, language changes. It is unstable.
2.3 interacts with power, solidarity, identity etc
Language use can identify one as belonging to certain groups, it can use the connotative meanings of, for example, accent to intimidate or to welcome. Vocabulary can be used to include or exclude. Syntax can slow others' apprehension down.
2.3.1 moral dimensions
Therefore, language has implication for ethics and politics as well as for the simple tasks of daily getting on with others, remember James' “taming the tongue”.
2.4 structured, rule-based and generative
Despite being finite, the range of possible meaningful sentences is infinite. Many rules of grammar are potentially recursive. Language then, is creative in offering the potential to use limited means to produce many distinct ends.
3 reflection
The things mentioned in the foregoing analysis section are fairly basic observations about language within linguistic science. What follows is to bring those observations into reflection on Genesis 1 and 2 and in particular the acts of creation and naming. For the sake of brevity I am not going to include further reflections on the temptation story and the Tower of Babel story.
3.1 Things I notice in the texts as a linguist
First of all let's look at Gen1.1-5. How should we understand the relationship between 'God created' and 'Let there be light'. In short, I'm taking it that "Let there be light" is to be understood as an act beginning to bring the formlessness and void to order. So we have an act of performative language bringing about what is spoken. Then we have acts of naming of what has been brought about.
3.1.1 God speaking
I don't read Genesis 1 as literal history, but it is interesting and important to start within the framework of the story. So I find myself wondering as a linguistic scientist: what 'said' can mean without mouth to speak; what medium the signal is supposed to be carried through; what linguistic community is implied? Now, there is an important sense in which these questions are simply 'wrong'. They are asking things that are beyond the purview of the story, particularly if it is not a literal story. (Of course, if it were taken to be a literal story, then the difficulty in coming up with sensible answers to these questions would tell against treating the story as being of a literal kind of genre). But let's stay with it for just a while longer.
"Said" seems to entail 'imagining' God -for the purposes of the narrative- as having a vocal tract and to be functioning within a medium capable of carrying sound. In other words the picture is literally contradictory to the rest of the narrative by envisaging it taking place in the world that is still to be created. So what are we to make of this? It does play into the later stories which see God walking around and in anthropomorphic terms. If we leave aside the anthropomorphisms or rather, if we seek to find in them pointers to non-literal meanings or ideas about God (as all religious language must do, it's just that this is 'cruder' than we usually play with), then what could we say; how could it help us to understand God and the world better?
The question may be better taken as why it is presented as a speech-act and not, say, as a feat of engineering, or manual labour. Maybe because light is 'ethereal', though that would not hold for the subsequent acts of speeched shaping. I'm going to suggest that the important thing about it may be that speech and words, hint at mind in a way that other kinds of actions do not. Speech is used among humans mostly for 'mind reading', so speaking is more closely associated with 'what's on your mind'. There's a closer relationship between intention and expression; less room for recalcitrance on the part of what is being 'performed upon'. For many people there is a close relationship between language and thought because much thought is mediated and processed in language.
Therefore, this "Let there be..." is both relatively effortless and hints at a very close connection to the mind of God. Here we do not have the effortful and violent myths of other cultures' creation stories with a gods having to make do with something that is being recycled from the body of an opponent, for example. Rather we have a clear expression of God's mind which can truly be called "good"2.
3.1.2 God naming
Let's now move on to the next part.
And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. Gen1.4-5
Here we have God portrayed as naming "day" and "night". Again, I don't think that it is very useful to ask what language3; the point is the act of naming not the phonemes.
It does seem to me that portraying God as naming tells us that God affirms language. There are those who, aware of the limitations of language which hermeneutics rubs our noses in, view language as necessarily imperfect and therefore as a condition of fallen human existence to be overcome and removed in the Age to come. I see in this part of the passage a hint that language is part of God's purposes and is not necessarily allied with the fall. Of course it must partake of the fall, but hermeneutics is not a science that must disappear in the new heavens and the new earth4.
The fact of God naming gives a legitimacy to the endeavour of language. The tasks of recognising similarities and differences and creating or refining semantic fields, of creating symbols to carry ideas, concepts and emotions between minds is a god-imaging task. In this passage we see God recognising reality and representing it in some way symbolically. To be sure it is tied to finiteness, createdness. But it is not thereby ungodly.
But it should be noted that the finitude is part of the point of language. It selects or highlights certain things about what we are aware of and leaves so many other things unlabelled, unsaid because they are not the focus. We can either assume others know them already or that they are not sufficiently important to name at that point for the purposes of communication then and there. God creates something finite, bounded, and immediately it is capable of being symbolised. Yes, God knows with total immediacy every quark, molecule, energetic trajectory, cell, planet and galaxy, but to recognise boundaries, differences and similarities, is to do something more than 'merely' be aware of all and each. Recognition opens up into seeing finite things in themselves and in relationship, and that in turn opens into the possibility of representation in symbol.
I'm not convinced by the idea that language in this passage shows in some way power over things. To me it seems that it is more akin to God seeing that what is, is good. It is about recognising the way things are, understanding them to some degree, seeing them in relationship, affirming them. It is first an act of contemplation, even of thanksgiving-in-embryo and then it is a calling to focus for others. Far from being a sign of fallenness, language is other-oriented of necessity in two dimensions: the signified is other and the receiver is other. Language represents an attempt to transcend the self; it is grounded in an agapeic movement.
3.1.3 God's self-talk
Verses 26-28 is the first time reader-wise that God is portrayed as talking to godself. A first-person "Let us..." instead of "Let there be ..." and similar third-person phrases. I can't help feeling that this is significant. Significant too that these are phrases not aiming to inform or describe but to accomplish things, underlining the apprehension that speaking is not just, or even primarily, about the modernist norm of reasoning.
Language really implies community. We don't learn to speak unless there is a language community to learn from and with. Language is a collective possession belonging to all who use it [notwithstanding the attempts to police it by the grammar-marms and 'disgusted of Tunbridge Wells']. So, though I know it's exegetically perilous, I can't help seeing a plurality implied in God being portrayed as speaking; it's not a royal 'we', its a simple recognition of a linguistic community. And it seems to imply that the communicative community that is God is being widened to include humans. Especially as God goes on to instruct the newly-formed divine-image bearers directly: second-personwise.
So it also seems to me interesting that the divine image seems to be associated with communication and therefore personal relationality. So to me, it doesn't seem at all far-fetched to find here a hint at personal relationality and community 'in' God. And it seems to me that we have the embryo of human beings being invited to share in the divine community-life.
'Ruling over' the earth and 'subduing' it, seems to imply that being included in God's [speech-]community brings with it a share in God's privilege of ruling, and naming things may be a key aspect of how to understand ruling and subduing.
3.1.4 Adam's act of naming
We turn next to Genesis 2:19-20a. It is this naming by Adam that seems to be the most fascinating. And again, it doesn't seem to me to be about taking power over. It seems, rather to be more of a contemplative act. Perhaps more than contemplative: an act of understanding, of taxonomy; and act of seeing in connection with other things and in differentiation. In actual fact, in doing this we seem to have a parallel to God's acts of naming in Genesis one.
Of course, the difficulty we have with that is that it is almost certain that chapter one has a different origin to that of chapter two. However, we may want to ask further questions of potential intertextual histories, but I don't want to hang around that issue here; merely note that I think that perhaps this theological similarity may indicate that there is one.
It is interesting how this naming is presented. It is not something that Adam snatches at while God isn't looking, it is not an act of fallen humanity [though it is intriguingly bracketed by things that later contribute to the fall]. Rather it is an act which God engineers by bringing before Adam what is to be named. And although it is in the passive, there is more than a hint of Divine endorsement in "that was its name". It is as if God is giving Adam -that is humankind- the freedom to make connections and discoveries, taxonomies and poetries. In short, it seems to me, it is implied in this little scene that God opens up a space for human culture to evolve with some degree of freedom from God. God is not creating a Divinely-sanctioned Borg collective where individuality is effectively erased and cultural development is only permitted along certain very tightly constrained lines. No, Adam can make names, give names and those names stand. Humans can contemplate the world, explore its nature, its components and its 'inter-ousiality' and assign signs and codes to think further and together about it and that sign-empowered marshalling of thinking understanding and celebrating is allowed to stand; it is accepted by God. God seems to want to see what we will make of the Creation, how we will understand it and wonder at it and how we will speak of it. And when I write 'speak', I mean to include the languages of the arts as well as the more 'scientific' or formal linguistic registers.
It seems to me that this basically favours a constructivist approach to learning. Not a strong variety where there is no objective reality and we entirely construct our own world, but a moderate version which accepts the [God-] givenness of the world but sees God as leaving room for us to see what we make of it and be creative with what we discover and how we 'taxonymise' it. This contrasts with a strong sovereignty view of God, such as that which seems to be implied in the Qur'an,5 which seems to minimise human creativity and responsiveness. The Qur'an seems to imply that language is God's and the implication for us would be to relearn those original names with all that implies for conforming to particular ways of taxonymising and cultural understanding.
This has important consequences for theology of mission, culture, science and education.
3.2 language and the image of God
Linguist Mark C Baker writes6:
In the Judeo-Christian scriptures language is, then, a property of humankind by virtue of the fact that God creates humans "in his own image" (Gen. 1:27). All other animals are called forth out of the ground, implying that they have a physical nature and are subject to the same physical principles as inanimate matter 9Gen. 1:24). The creation of humanity, however, has a second step: 'The Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being" (Gen. 2:7). In other words, humanity is given a spiritual nature that is specifically said to be parallel in many respects to God's. Among other things, this means that since God is a linguistic being, so are humans.
Is God really a linguistic being? I have trouble with saying that God is a linguistic being. The text of Gen 1-3 does present God speechfully including the “let us” passage mentioned above. But it would be going too far to claim that this was more than anthropomorphism. When we reflect on the nature of language, we understand why: language necessarily involves partialness as we select topics and ignore -or leave assumed- other things. Language is, of necessity, tied up with the work of dividing up and demarcating creation. So to say that God is a linguistic being is problematic: are we really saying God talks to Godself in Gods own inner being? Let's further reflect that God has no vocal tract (except in incarnation) and presumably no barriers between the persons of the Trinity to full disclosure and therefore no need for the partialness of speech.
Yet clearly God condescends to communicate in some way corresponding to verbally with Adam. So perhaps it is not that God is linguistic so much as God is communicative and language is a chief means to communicate in a context involving finitude both of environment and of agents? Being communicative is an aspect of loving: it is going out to the other, touching the other, overcoming the separation. Perhaps we can see language at its best as a reflection of the Divine perichoresis. Language images God in terms of finitude and biologically-emergent matter, not only in terms of communicativeness, but also and relatedly in terms of socialness, for language is a community affair.
So the implications of language for thinking about the image of God seem to devolve to being particular cases of the general issues which come to a head in incarnation and ascension.
4 planning
At this point I have not explored the planning phase of the cycle. So Let me outline the work still to be done. Further reflection on passages from Genesis 1-12, particularly the temptation narrative and the Tower of Babel and its precursor. There is more to be said about constructivism particularly in relation to education and via semiotics about culture and the arts. In turn it may be that this should be related to the New Jerusalem and an eschatological account. There is also some exploration due of the way that language's implication in incarnation may be thought about further.
notes
1 Buckley & Green, Let's do Theology
2 There is an ideological dimension here that need not detain us now as it is covered in other reflections on the history and meaning of this passage.
3 . It happens here to be in English translated from Hebrew -which is the original language of the text as we now have it. However, it would seem that the Hebrews picked up what we know as 'Hebrew' from the Canaanites, having presumably spoken Aramaic in patriarchal times.
4 There is a helpful treatment of this issue in Smith, 2000.
5 “Allah taught Adam all the names of everything”, Q.2.31
6 Baker, p.512
Bibliography of works consulted
Baker, Mark C.. The Syntax of Agreement and Concord (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics). New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann. The Social Construction of Reality (Penguin Social Sciences). London: Penguin Books Ltd, 1991.
Brueggemann, Walter. Genesis: Interpretation : A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching). Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1986.
Buckley, Lord, and Laurie Green. Let's Do Theology: A Pastoral Cycle Resource Book. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2002.
Cartledge, Mark J. Speaking in Tongues (Studies in Pentecostal and Charismatic Issues) (Studies in Pentecostal and Charismatic Issues) (Studies in Pentecostal and Charismatic Issues). Carlisle: Paternoster, 2006.
Cotterell, Peter. Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989.
Crystal, David. Linguistics (Penguin Language & Linguistics). London: Penguin Uk, 1990.
Crystal, David. Linguistics, Language and Religion. London: Burns & Oates, 1965.
Eiser, J. Richard. Attitudes, Chaos and the Connectionist Mind. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 1994.
Gray, John. Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals. London: Granta Books, 2004.
Johnson, Mark, and George Lakoff. Philosophy in the Flesh : The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1999.
Lyons, John. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1968.
Maturana, Humberto R., and Francisco Varela. Tree of Knowledge. Boston & London: Shambhala, 1992.
Searle, John R.. The Construction of Social Reality. New York City: Free Press, 1997.
Sechehaye, Charles &, and Albert (Editors) Bally. Course in General Linguistics Ferdinand De Saussure. England: Mcgraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1966.
Silva, Moises. God, Language and Scripture. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Company, 1991.
Smith, James K. A.. The Fall of Interpretation: Philosophical Foundations for a Creational Hermeneutic. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000.
Teselle, Sallie M. Speaking in Parables: A Study in Metaphor and Theology. London: Scm P, 1975.
Thiselton, Anthony C.. New Horizons in Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1997.
Wink, Walter. Naming the Powers: The Language of Power in the New Testament (The Powers : Volume One). Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 1983.
Introduction:
My first degree is in Linguistics (otherwise known as linguistic science) and I have read a number of books in the intervening years that attempt to bring together linguistics and theology. Either they have been mostly about how linguistics can help textual studies or understanding some elements of background to biblical or even doctrinal investigations or they have been very much focussed on the philosophy of language in order to inform hermeneutics and enquiries related to metaphorical and analogical matters in relation to God-talk. All of those things are important, and interesting, but not what I was really looking for.
What I was looking for was a theology of language rather than theology with language or theology via language. What I have been seeking to do is to address the perceived lack and reflect theologically on the phenomenon of human language from the perspective of one formed by the discipline of linguistic science. The framework for this reflection is the pastoral cycle, a major tool of reflection in practical theology which sketches out the main aspects of reflective thinking and practice and so gives structure to the reflective process.
This reflection I see as a kind of dialogue between the characteristics of language in my analysis so far, and some apparently key and certainly intriguing passages in Genesis 1-12. This approach would correspond to Green's 'intuition'1 on the reflection epicycle.
1 experience
Quite simply the experience is of conducting much life in and through the medium of English but also of using other languages from time to time and finding interesting questions about the structure of speech sounds, syntactical relationships, linguistic variation in respect of social and psychological matters and how the human condition is reflected in and refracted through language. There are, then, two main facets of the experience for me.
1.1 human language
Is fairly unique as far as we can tell. The claims about teaching other primates to use sign language are contested in regard to whether they are actually using grammar or merely isolated vocabules in sequence. Being part of linguistic communities is basic: no community, no language.
1.2 linguistic science
is simply the attempt to study the phenomenon of language systematically, descriptively (as opposed to proscriptively: beware grammar marms!) and with a view to formulating testable hypotheses.
2 analysis
In this section I will mention the main characteristics of human language as they appear to me from my experience. These are the communal nature of language, it finiteness, its assimilation to and disclosure of human power, solidarity and identity, and that it is rule-based and generative.
2.1 communal
The only examples of languages which have only one speaker are those shortly to be dead languages or artificial languages. In the former case a linguistic community once did exist. In the latter it exists in the imagination of the author (Sindarin or Quenya might be cited here and Esperanto when first devised). Language is a communal possession: it belongs to a speech community who negotiate it tacitly in usage and sometimes explicitly in arguments or observations about habits or differences of speech.
2.2 Finite and focal
However big a word count a language can muster, it is still a finite number, and a smaller number of words that will be in active regular usage. Finiteness means it is partial, connotative and unstable. Focal means that as a finite tool it brings things into focus, excluding others thereby from topicality.
2.2.1 partial
Language is partial in that it is constrained to draw attention to some things. It cannot refer to everything. And even what it does focus on can only be partially described by picking out salient features of perceived reality while leaving others assumed and unstated. This is an important feature to note because some theological positions assume that the partialness of language implies an imperfection that would not be part of Eschatological reality. I doubt this -as will be seen below.
2.2.2 connotative
Because it is partial, language -indeed any sign system, also tends to invest its components with a penumbra of connoted meanings: things that may be implied or implicated, associations. These meanings are often very influential but unnoticed consciously.
2.2.3 unstable
By virtue of a vocal tract operated by fatigue-prone musculature in a frequently sub-optimal environment relying on 'receiving equipment' of variable quality, language changes. By virtue of facing novel dimensions of human experience (at least existentially), language changes. By virtue of artistry, fashion and the felt need to stake out identities, language changes. It is unstable.
2.3 interacts with power, solidarity, identity etc
Language use can identify one as belonging to certain groups, it can use the connotative meanings of, for example, accent to intimidate or to welcome. Vocabulary can be used to include or exclude. Syntax can slow others' apprehension down.
2.3.1 moral dimensions
Therefore, language has implication for ethics and politics as well as for the simple tasks of daily getting on with others, remember James' “taming the tongue”.
2.4 structured, rule-based and generative
Despite being finite, the range of possible meaningful sentences is infinite. Many rules of grammar are potentially recursive. Language then, is creative in offering the potential to use limited means to produce many distinct ends.
3 reflection
The things mentioned in the foregoing analysis section are fairly basic observations about language within linguistic science. What follows is to bring those observations into reflection on Genesis 1 and 2 and in particular the acts of creation and naming. For the sake of brevity I am not going to include further reflections on the temptation story and the Tower of Babel story.
3.1 Things I notice in the texts as a linguist
First of all let's look at Gen1.1-5. How should we understand the relationship between 'God created' and 'Let there be light'. In short, I'm taking it that "Let there be light" is to be understood as an act beginning to bring the formlessness and void to order. So we have an act of performative language bringing about what is spoken. Then we have acts of naming of what has been brought about.
3.1.1 God speaking
I don't read Genesis 1 as literal history, but it is interesting and important to start within the framework of the story. So I find myself wondering as a linguistic scientist: what 'said' can mean without mouth to speak; what medium the signal is supposed to be carried through; what linguistic community is implied? Now, there is an important sense in which these questions are simply 'wrong'. They are asking things that are beyond the purview of the story, particularly if it is not a literal story. (Of course, if it were taken to be a literal story, then the difficulty in coming up with sensible answers to these questions would tell against treating the story as being of a literal kind of genre). But let's stay with it for just a while longer.
"Said" seems to entail 'imagining' God -for the purposes of the narrative- as having a vocal tract and to be functioning within a medium capable of carrying sound. In other words the picture is literally contradictory to the rest of the narrative by envisaging it taking place in the world that is still to be created. So what are we to make of this? It does play into the later stories which see God walking around and in anthropomorphic terms. If we leave aside the anthropomorphisms or rather, if we seek to find in them pointers to non-literal meanings or ideas about God (as all religious language must do, it's just that this is 'cruder' than we usually play with), then what could we say; how could it help us to understand God and the world better?
The question may be better taken as why it is presented as a speech-act and not, say, as a feat of engineering, or manual labour. Maybe because light is 'ethereal', though that would not hold for the subsequent acts of speeched shaping. I'm going to suggest that the important thing about it may be that speech and words, hint at mind in a way that other kinds of actions do not. Speech is used among humans mostly for 'mind reading', so speaking is more closely associated with 'what's on your mind'. There's a closer relationship between intention and expression; less room for recalcitrance on the part of what is being 'performed upon'. For many people there is a close relationship between language and thought because much thought is mediated and processed in language.
Therefore, this "Let there be..." is both relatively effortless and hints at a very close connection to the mind of God. Here we do not have the effortful and violent myths of other cultures' creation stories with a gods having to make do with something that is being recycled from the body of an opponent, for example. Rather we have a clear expression of God's mind which can truly be called "good"2.
3.1.2 God naming
Let's now move on to the next part.
And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. Gen1.4-5
Here we have God portrayed as naming "day" and "night". Again, I don't think that it is very useful to ask what language3; the point is the act of naming not the phonemes.
It does seem to me that portraying God as naming tells us that God affirms language. There are those who, aware of the limitations of language which hermeneutics rubs our noses in, view language as necessarily imperfect and therefore as a condition of fallen human existence to be overcome and removed in the Age to come. I see in this part of the passage a hint that language is part of God's purposes and is not necessarily allied with the fall. Of course it must partake of the fall, but hermeneutics is not a science that must disappear in the new heavens and the new earth4.
The fact of God naming gives a legitimacy to the endeavour of language. The tasks of recognising similarities and differences and creating or refining semantic fields, of creating symbols to carry ideas, concepts and emotions between minds is a god-imaging task. In this passage we see God recognising reality and representing it in some way symbolically. To be sure it is tied to finiteness, createdness. But it is not thereby ungodly.
But it should be noted that the finitude is part of the point of language. It selects or highlights certain things about what we are aware of and leaves so many other things unlabelled, unsaid because they are not the focus. We can either assume others know them already or that they are not sufficiently important to name at that point for the purposes of communication then and there. God creates something finite, bounded, and immediately it is capable of being symbolised. Yes, God knows with total immediacy every quark, molecule, energetic trajectory, cell, planet and galaxy, but to recognise boundaries, differences and similarities, is to do something more than 'merely' be aware of all and each. Recognition opens up into seeing finite things in themselves and in relationship, and that in turn opens into the possibility of representation in symbol.
I'm not convinced by the idea that language in this passage shows in some way power over things. To me it seems that it is more akin to God seeing that what is, is good. It is about recognising the way things are, understanding them to some degree, seeing them in relationship, affirming them. It is first an act of contemplation, even of thanksgiving-in-embryo and then it is a calling to focus for others. Far from being a sign of fallenness, language is other-oriented of necessity in two dimensions: the signified is other and the receiver is other. Language represents an attempt to transcend the self; it is grounded in an agapeic movement.
3.1.3 God's self-talk
Verses 26-28 is the first time reader-wise that God is portrayed as talking to godself. A first-person "Let us..." instead of "Let there be ..." and similar third-person phrases. I can't help feeling that this is significant. Significant too that these are phrases not aiming to inform or describe but to accomplish things, underlining the apprehension that speaking is not just, or even primarily, about the modernist norm of reasoning.
Language really implies community. We don't learn to speak unless there is a language community to learn from and with. Language is a collective possession belonging to all who use it [notwithstanding the attempts to police it by the grammar-marms and 'disgusted of Tunbridge Wells']. So, though I know it's exegetically perilous, I can't help seeing a plurality implied in God being portrayed as speaking; it's not a royal 'we', its a simple recognition of a linguistic community. And it seems to imply that the communicative community that is God is being widened to include humans. Especially as God goes on to instruct the newly-formed divine-image bearers directly: second-personwise.
So it also seems to me interesting that the divine image seems to be associated with communication and therefore personal relationality. So to me, it doesn't seem at all far-fetched to find here a hint at personal relationality and community 'in' God. And it seems to me that we have the embryo of human beings being invited to share in the divine community-life.
'Ruling over' the earth and 'subduing' it, seems to imply that being included in God's [speech-]community brings with it a share in God's privilege of ruling, and naming things may be a key aspect of how to understand ruling and subduing.
3.1.4 Adam's act of naming
We turn next to Genesis 2:19-20a. It is this naming by Adam that seems to be the most fascinating. And again, it doesn't seem to me to be about taking power over. It seems, rather to be more of a contemplative act. Perhaps more than contemplative: an act of understanding, of taxonomy; and act of seeing in connection with other things and in differentiation. In actual fact, in doing this we seem to have a parallel to God's acts of naming in Genesis one.
Of course, the difficulty we have with that is that it is almost certain that chapter one has a different origin to that of chapter two. However, we may want to ask further questions of potential intertextual histories, but I don't want to hang around that issue here; merely note that I think that perhaps this theological similarity may indicate that there is one.
It is interesting how this naming is presented. It is not something that Adam snatches at while God isn't looking, it is not an act of fallen humanity [though it is intriguingly bracketed by things that later contribute to the fall]. Rather it is an act which God engineers by bringing before Adam what is to be named. And although it is in the passive, there is more than a hint of Divine endorsement in "that was its name". It is as if God is giving Adam -that is humankind- the freedom to make connections and discoveries, taxonomies and poetries. In short, it seems to me, it is implied in this little scene that God opens up a space for human culture to evolve with some degree of freedom from God. God is not creating a Divinely-sanctioned Borg collective where individuality is effectively erased and cultural development is only permitted along certain very tightly constrained lines. No, Adam can make names, give names and those names stand. Humans can contemplate the world, explore its nature, its components and its 'inter-ousiality' and assign signs and codes to think further and together about it and that sign-empowered marshalling of thinking understanding and celebrating is allowed to stand; it is accepted by God. God seems to want to see what we will make of the Creation, how we will understand it and wonder at it and how we will speak of it. And when I write 'speak', I mean to include the languages of the arts as well as the more 'scientific' or formal linguistic registers.
It seems to me that this basically favours a constructivist approach to learning. Not a strong variety where there is no objective reality and we entirely construct our own world, but a moderate version which accepts the [God-] givenness of the world but sees God as leaving room for us to see what we make of it and be creative with what we discover and how we 'taxonymise' it. This contrasts with a strong sovereignty view of God, such as that which seems to be implied in the Qur'an,5 which seems to minimise human creativity and responsiveness. The Qur'an seems to imply that language is God's and the implication for us would be to relearn those original names with all that implies for conforming to particular ways of taxonymising and cultural understanding.
This has important consequences for theology of mission, culture, science and education.
3.2 language and the image of God
Linguist Mark C Baker writes6:
In the Judeo-Christian scriptures language is, then, a property of humankind by virtue of the fact that God creates humans "in his own image" (Gen. 1:27). All other animals are called forth out of the ground, implying that they have a physical nature and are subject to the same physical principles as inanimate matter 9Gen. 1:24). The creation of humanity, however, has a second step: 'The Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being" (Gen. 2:7). In other words, humanity is given a spiritual nature that is specifically said to be parallel in many respects to God's. Among other things, this means that since God is a linguistic being, so are humans.
Is God really a linguistic being? I have trouble with saying that God is a linguistic being. The text of Gen 1-3 does present God speechfully including the “let us” passage mentioned above. But it would be going too far to claim that this was more than anthropomorphism. When we reflect on the nature of language, we understand why: language necessarily involves partialness as we select topics and ignore -or leave assumed- other things. Language is, of necessity, tied up with the work of dividing up and demarcating creation. So to say that God is a linguistic being is problematic: are we really saying God talks to Godself in Gods own inner being? Let's further reflect that God has no vocal tract (except in incarnation) and presumably no barriers between the persons of the Trinity to full disclosure and therefore no need for the partialness of speech.
Yet clearly God condescends to communicate in some way corresponding to verbally with Adam. So perhaps it is not that God is linguistic so much as God is communicative and language is a chief means to communicate in a context involving finitude both of environment and of agents? Being communicative is an aspect of loving: it is going out to the other, touching the other, overcoming the separation. Perhaps we can see language at its best as a reflection of the Divine perichoresis. Language images God in terms of finitude and biologically-emergent matter, not only in terms of communicativeness, but also and relatedly in terms of socialness, for language is a community affair.
So the implications of language for thinking about the image of God seem to devolve to being particular cases of the general issues which come to a head in incarnation and ascension.
4 planning
At this point I have not explored the planning phase of the cycle. So Let me outline the work still to be done. Further reflection on passages from Genesis 1-12, particularly the temptation narrative and the Tower of Babel and its precursor. There is more to be said about constructivism particularly in relation to education and via semiotics about culture and the arts. In turn it may be that this should be related to the New Jerusalem and an eschatological account. There is also some exploration due of the way that language's implication in incarnation may be thought about further.
notes
1 Buckley & Green, Let's do Theology
2 There is an ideological dimension here that need not detain us now as it is covered in other reflections on the history and meaning of this passage.
3 . It happens here to be in English translated from Hebrew -which is the original language of the text as we now have it. However, it would seem that the Hebrews picked up what we know as 'Hebrew' from the Canaanites, having presumably spoken Aramaic in patriarchal times.
4 There is a helpful treatment of this issue in Smith, 2000.
5 “Allah taught Adam all the names of everything”, Q.2.31
6 Baker, p.512
Bibliography of works consulted
Baker, Mark C.. The Syntax of Agreement and Concord (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics). New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann. The Social Construction of Reality (Penguin Social Sciences). London: Penguin Books Ltd, 1991.
Brueggemann, Walter. Genesis: Interpretation : A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching). Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1986.
Buckley, Lord, and Laurie Green. Let's Do Theology: A Pastoral Cycle Resource Book. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2002.
Cartledge, Mark J. Speaking in Tongues (Studies in Pentecostal and Charismatic Issues) (Studies in Pentecostal and Charismatic Issues) (Studies in Pentecostal and Charismatic Issues). Carlisle: Paternoster, 2006.
Cotterell, Peter. Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989.
Crystal, David. Linguistics (Penguin Language & Linguistics). London: Penguin Uk, 1990.
Crystal, David. Linguistics, Language and Religion. London: Burns & Oates, 1965.
Eiser, J. Richard. Attitudes, Chaos and the Connectionist Mind. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 1994.
Gray, John. Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals. London: Granta Books, 2004.
Johnson, Mark, and George Lakoff. Philosophy in the Flesh : The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1999.
Lyons, John. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1968.
Maturana, Humberto R., and Francisco Varela. Tree of Knowledge. Boston & London: Shambhala, 1992.
Searle, John R.. The Construction of Social Reality. New York City: Free Press, 1997.
Sechehaye, Charles &, and Albert (Editors) Bally. Course in General Linguistics Ferdinand De Saussure. England: Mcgraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1966.
Silva, Moises. God, Language and Scripture. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Company, 1991.
Smith, James K. A.. The Fall of Interpretation: Philosophical Foundations for a Creational Hermeneutic. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000.
Teselle, Sallie M. Speaking in Parables: A Study in Metaphor and Theology. London: Scm P, 1975.
Thiselton, Anthony C.. New Horizons in Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1997.
Wink, Walter. Naming the Powers: The Language of Power in the New Testament (The Powers : Volume One). Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 1983.
03 June 2008
Jesus Loving & Laughing Exhibition
Too right: "Much Christian art (and theology) has concentrated on guilt and suffering. But Jesus came to bring joy to the world - not to make guilt-ridden wrecks."
And so it's good to hear of this and to see posted some of the pictures:
"This collection of paintings from artists from 16 countries gives their impressions of a laughing, loving Jesus who is a living presence"Jesus Loving & Laughing Exhibition:
What Does It Mean to Be Human?
This Wired article, What Does It Mean to Be Human?is a nice little panel thing offering soundbites from various scientists, many of the answers involved language and semiotic abilities. I particularly liked this one.: "Antonio Damasio, neuroscientist: The critical unique factor is language. Creativity. The religious and scientific impulse. And our social organization, which has developed to a prodigious degree. We have a record of history, moral behavior, economics, political and social institutions. We're probably unique in our ability to investigate the future, imagine outcomes, and display images in our minds."
What would your answer be? And how would you integrate a theological dimension with the scientific answers?
What would your answer be? And how would you integrate a theological dimension with the scientific answers?
Money and finance alternatives: TerraTRC
A few years back, I found myself preaching and, looking to illustrate faith, took our monetary system as an example. It works because we have faith that if we accept as payment the tokens we call money, then in turn we will be able to tender them in payment. This caused more of a ripple than I'd anticipated. It hadn't occured to me that, in the first place, lots of people wouldn't have already realised this and in the second place that it would be somewhat unsettling. The article I've referenced (just click the post header), gives a good overview of how currency works and the summary statement is this: "Ultimately, money (especially money that is not backed by real goods or services) is in essence a trust that lives and dies only in human hearts and minds. Money systems, including our current one, are filled with mechanisms and symbols that aim at keeping that trust alive. Civilizations are built on trust, because it is at the core of the self-confidence required for a civilization to grow and survive.
Conversely, when a society loses confidence in its money, it loses confidence in itself. Entire civilizations have collapsed with the collapse of their money system".
But the really important point of this site is to highlight the great instability of our current free-floating currencies (they are not tied to anything tangible, the gold standard having been abandoned some 30 odd years ago), the speculative frenzy that this has created in the financial markets and the dangers inherent in this system. It is for these reasons the alternative is offered. Now I have to confess, also, that as a child/teenager, I thought that the system being proposed in this article, was in fact what must happen in order to determine the relative values of currencies against one another. It just seemed a logical way to proceed. I was surprised, doing A level economics, to discover it wasn't the way things worked. So what is this plain and logical alternative? Basically, to use a basket of goods and services as a standard to determine relative values of currencies. This would bring a number of advantages.
"The TRC™ is poised to dramatically change barter and counter-trade along with creating, stability and predictability in the financial and business sectors by providing a standard of value for international trade. This will be the first time since the gold-standard days that a robust international standard of value that is inflation-resistant would become available. Most importantly, it will resolve the current conflict between short-term financial interest and long-term sustainability. This mechanism would work in parallel with national currencies. Finally, this proposal would need no new legislation or international agreements to become operational."
TerraTRC:
Conversely, when a society loses confidence in its money, it loses confidence in itself. Entire civilizations have collapsed with the collapse of their money system".
But the really important point of this site is to highlight the great instability of our current free-floating currencies (they are not tied to anything tangible, the gold standard having been abandoned some 30 odd years ago), the speculative frenzy that this has created in the financial markets and the dangers inherent in this system. It is for these reasons the alternative is offered. Now I have to confess, also, that as a child/teenager, I thought that the system being proposed in this article, was in fact what must happen in order to determine the relative values of currencies against one another. It just seemed a logical way to proceed. I was surprised, doing A level economics, to discover it wasn't the way things worked. So what is this plain and logical alternative? Basically, to use a basket of goods and services as a standard to determine relative values of currencies. This would bring a number of advantages.
"The TRC™ is poised to dramatically change barter and counter-trade along with creating, stability and predictability in the financial and business sectors by providing a standard of value for international trade. This will be the first time since the gold-standard days that a robust international standard of value that is inflation-resistant would become available. Most importantly, it will resolve the current conflict between short-term financial interest and long-term sustainability. This mechanism would work in parallel with national currencies. Finally, this proposal would need no new legislation or international agreements to become operational."
TerraTRC:
Preparing the Middle Class For Life in Uncertain Times
In this article Preparing the Middle Class For Life in Uncertain TimesPenny Carothers and Greenbelt speaker and all-round helpful futurist, Tom Sine reiterate a point that I've been on the edge of making in an earlier posting on oil prices: "People in Britain and Australia are beginning to feel the impact of American economic troubles too. It is essential that middle-class Christians realize that following Jesus in uncertain times requires that we both reduce our vulnerability and increase our capability for compassionate response."
There follows a brief but helpful outline of why, economically, we find ourselves in this position. The response is not, as the saying goes, rocket science: "We can reduce our vulnerability by 1) getting out of debt as rapidly as possible, 2) seriously reducing our consumer spending, and 3) perhaps moving to a less expensive dwelling and selling vehicles or items that we may not need. If we can significantly reduce both our levels of debt and how much we spend on our own lives, then we have the opportunity to free more money or time to help economically empower our most vulnerable neighbors, both in our own communities and in other parts of the world"
We are then treated to some encouraging stories of people doing just those things.
One thing that doesn't get a mention is the possibility of starting up a local currency based not on interest (which is what our national currencies are founded on, and so are part of the problem) but on local trust and resources. Bernard Lietaer's book The Future of Money is a good 'primer' for this stuff (though currently it's a bit pricey but I've been working on that, as the link will reveal). I have been wondering whether to moot the idea at college as a practical primer in community development.
There follows a brief but helpful outline of why, economically, we find ourselves in this position. The response is not, as the saying goes, rocket science: "We can reduce our vulnerability by 1) getting out of debt as rapidly as possible, 2) seriously reducing our consumer spending, and 3) perhaps moving to a less expensive dwelling and selling vehicles or items that we may not need. If we can significantly reduce both our levels of debt and how much we spend on our own lives, then we have the opportunity to free more money or time to help economically empower our most vulnerable neighbors, both in our own communities and in other parts of the world"
We are then treated to some encouraging stories of people doing just those things.
One thing that doesn't get a mention is the possibility of starting up a local currency based not on interest (which is what our national currencies are founded on, and so are part of the problem) but on local trust and resources. Bernard Lietaer's book The Future of Money is a good 'primer' for this stuff (though currently it's a bit pricey but I've been working on that, as the link will reveal). I have been wondering whether to moot the idea at college as a practical primer in community development.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
I've been watching the TV series 'Foundation'. I read the books about 50 years ago (I know!) but scarcely now remember anything...
-
I've just had an article published on emergingchurch.info. It's an adaptation of some of my book, but I thought I'd share it and...
-
from: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/online/2012/5/22/1337672561216/Annular-solar-eclipse--008.jpg